[GS] New patch: AI walled city attack experiment results

[Casworon]

Snowballing AI's would make the game much better. Especially if they are warmonger civs.

Would be cool to have an option of the game choosing 1-2 AI in a standard sized map and giving them extra bonuses so they can roll over the other AI over the course of the game and present a late game challenge

 

[Krajzen]

Snowballing AI's would make the game much better. Especially if they are warmonger civs.

Would be cool to have an option of the game choosing 1-2 AI in a standard sized map and giving them extra bonuses so they can roll over the other AI over the course of the game and present a late game challenge

Yeah, I'd love such game option, or option of "difficulty scaling with time" where AI doesn't get any bonuses at start and then gets more every era.
Unfortunately, it is probably left to mods at this point.

 

[h0nk0815]

I look for the build option that restores walls but I can't see it in the list. Maybe it's only for cities with ancient, medieval or renaissance walls built or something.

You can't repair the outer defenses, if your city took damage in the last 3 or so turns.

 

[V. Soma]

I now propose repeating this test but after making contact with the Aztecs, make him declare on you - and let's see how AI manages war...

 

[Prima Italia]

That is laughably bad. There is no other words that need to be said. Laughably bad.

 

[Takfloyd]

Because AI is hard, and Advance Wars is an infinitely simpler game.

In terms of combat, Advance Wars is not simpler than Civ VI at all. It's about the same level of complexity. The AI in Advance Wars knows not to walk its weak units into range of artillery for no reason, it knows to keep its melee units in front of its ranged ones, it understands when to return to heal and when to push the attack because it can take an objective with the damaged unit. It even counterbuilds depending on what opponents build. These are not hard things to program, but it's still somehow beyond Firaxis.

 

[Jewman]

I saw Monty wiped out by gilga... it is in fact wonderfully going back to the runaway AI. At least with this approach you can lose!
I know many did not like it and I strongly suspect they hobbled the AI in R&F, but I believe it is better... and @Infixo is right... however full credit to @Gort because this same test has been performed before so we have some best willed comparative result.

For sure seeing more runaway civ type games. Not so much that one civ runs away but they are just significantly more competent at war for some reason. I've been attacked with battering rams, complete encirclement using naval and land units, only problem was that it was the zulu attacking and they weren't using impis or corps even tho they had coursers so clearly they were at a good tech level...

 

[Casworon]

An option to set the difficulty of individual AI's in singleplayer would be nice. This way you could create a snowballing AI or two to increase the challenge in a way that doesnt require modding.

You can do this by just creating a local area network game as the only player. But you are stuck with the multiplayer chat menu and the 'its your turn' banner.

Does anyone know if multiplayer games are recorded in the Hall of Fame?

 

[Gorbles]

In terms of combat, Advance Wars is not simpler than Civ VI at all. It's about the same level of complexity. The AI in Advance Wars knows not to walk its weak units into range of artillery for no reason, it knows to keep its melee units in front of its ranged ones, it understands when to return to heal and when to push the attack because it can take an objective with the damaged unit. It even counterbuilds depending on what opponents build. These are not hard things to program, but it's still somehow beyond Firaxis.

"in terms of combat" is already simplifying the process that the AI in this game has to contend with. Decisions aren't necessarily made in a vacuum, just like we don't commit to military actions if there are external factors. The AI in Advance Wars (in any of the titles, tbh) deals with smaller maps, with less avenues for both movement and attack, and a smaller range of units. The expanded number of decisions isn't linear; it's nearer exponential (but not quite).

Also, speaking as someone who spent a lot of time on Black Hole Rising and Dual Strike, the AI was still incredibly easy to predict and game (especially around FoW and lone wood tiles).

I'm not gonna respond anymore, so knock yourself out. Any further tangents aren't going to help the OP or anyone discussing their scenario.

 

[Takfloyd]

"in terms of combat" is already simplifying the process that the AI in this game has to contend with. Decisions aren't necessarily made in a vacuum, just like we don't commit to military actions if there are external factors. The AI in Advance Wars (in any of the titles, tbh) deals with smaller maps, with less avenues for both movement and attack, and a smaller range of units. The expanded number of decisions isn't linear; it's nearer exponential (but not quite).

Also, speaking as someone who spent a lot of time on Black Hole Rising and Dual Strike, the AI was still incredibly easy to predict and game (especially around FoW and lone wood tiles).

I'm not gonna respond anymore, so knock yourself out. Any further tangents aren't going to help the OP or anyone discussing their scenario.

You can try to explain it away any way you like, but the fact remains that Civ VI's AI is incapable of using its dozens of units to take a single target, which is the ONLY military target on the entire map. There is no excuse for this. And OP is playing on a Duel map, which is not bigger than Advance Wars ones. The unit variety is also actually much greater in Advance Wars - most of Civ VI's units are simply upgrades of other units(which are treated identically by the AI), while all units in AW are unique. The AI is predictable in those games, but that's because it takes smart options instead of moving what seems to be completely randomly.

Feel free to not respond, I'll take that as an admission.

Moderator Action: Please do not troll. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[V. Soma]

I made a version of the OP test:

* Domination victory only
* Duel size map
* Pangaea
* Information era start
* Deity difficulty
* Online speed
* Aztec opponent
* No turn limit
and no barbs

Find Aztecs and settle near, keep no unit, denounce Aztecs, try to make AI declare war on me

208: start exploring
211: meet AI ranger
213: I settle 4 tiles from Tenochtitlan, delete all units, denounce AI (25 grievance), build Manhattan Project
215: I demand Aztec luxury
218: AI trader creates trade route with me
223: I realize I can have luxury that Aztecs don’t have so I get it, and Monty comes telling me he doesn’t like that
224: I demand AI uranium (12), I see AI escorted settler moving to new lands
231: AI settle on the other side of my capital
236: I finish Manhattan Project, begin supply convoy (will delete it), I demand all AI have, relationship is unfriendly (-16)
241: Monty comes to say sg negative about my people being so badly treated
242: Monty denounces me, relationship is -25, Monty has 20 oil and 48 uranium, I demand all I can
249: Monty has the luxury I have…
250: Monty declares war on me! Moves 3 AT into my land and has rocket arty
251: AI attacks with AT
252: AI attacks with 3 AT and 1 gun
253: AI attacks with arty and units: my fortification is 240/400
254: AI conquers city, I am lost…

So, it was 5 turns after Monty declaring on me...

I will make another test like this with defending arty unit in my city...

 

[V. Soma]

test 2, active defending on my part...

215: meet Monty, settle with AT defending, appoint Victor, denounce Monty, relationship is -15
226: AI has new city
230: Monty has AT armies
238: Monty wants embassy, I decline
240: I denounce
241: Monty declares on me! He has 2 AT armies and 1 gun army close to me on his land that is next to my city! I shoot what I can…
242: AI attacks - I shoot AT corps
243: AI attacks - I shoot AT corps
244: AI rocket arty shoots - I am down to the red…
245: I am conquered…

So I tried to defend, and it was again 5 turns after AI declared…

 

[bbbt]

You can try to explain it away any way you like, but the fact remains that Civ VI's AI is incapable of using its dozens of units to take a single target, which is the ONLY military target on the entire map.

I think what people are arguing is that the 'main' issue is the AI's prioritization ability. I.e. that city is not a 'target' unless the AI itself declares war (in which case it has a set of units it has built/designated for that task). At this point the AI's priority is something like "build up my science" and "occasionally harass the person who declared war on me so they hopefully declare peace and let me continue to build up my science"

So it's an issue that needs to be addressed in terms of the AI's prioritization, but it may/may not be a good test of it's tactical ability to take a city because that's not it's actual goal.

It also remains an issue in that the AI just seems to have one path finding logic - i.e. "what's the straightest route". Not "what's the straightest route not in the line of fire"

test 2, active defending on my part...

So I tried to defend, and it was again 5 turns after AI declared…

Is this also with walled cities? Or I guess post urban defenses? Edit: Never mind you mention out of 400, so clearly post urban defenses.

So someone who has looked at the Civ 6 AI more can correct me, but iirc correctly, it is set up to have "missions" (or something like that) which require a minimum number of troops to engage in. When declared war upon, the AI probably has it's units engaged in other activities (scout! garrison! defend city! etc), and there's not a logic loop like there should be saying "there's a city available for me to take, reprioritize X number of troops for the mission"). It might also be why I'll see say the AI attack my wall - less city with a caravel, do half damage, and then sail away instead of taking it the next turn - it might be stuck in some sort of "I need 3 minimum boats to take a city and I only have one" loop.

 

[V. Soma]

Is this also with walled cities? Or I guess post urban defenses? Edit: Never mind you mention out of 400, so clearly post urban defenses.

It was my information era capital city (so with walls)

 

[ferretbacon]

This should be printed in a thousand copies and mailed to Firaxis's doorstep.

I cannot fathom how it's possible to be this incompetent at AI programming. How do these "professionals" keep their jobs? It's been several years of patches and expansions now and the AI makes the one in Advance Wars, a gameboy game, look like Deep Blue.

I'm wondering, at this point, if it's intentional. Are they catering to a wider audience by having a less challenging game? I mean, it is off-putting to dump 8 hours into a game and then get steamrolled by the computer. Maybe they're curtailing that frustration by making the combat AI intentionally dumb. Pulling its punches, so to speak.

Not combat AI, but has anyone noticed that the AI doesn't actively try to convert your cities in pursuit of a religious victory if you have your own founded religion? I've seen waves of proselytizers skip my civilization entirely.

 

[Infixo]

So someone who has looked at the Civ 6 AI more can correct me, but iirc correctly, it is set up to have "missions" (or something like that) which require a minimum number of troops to engage in. When declared war upon, the AI probably has it's units engaged in other activities (scout! garrison! defend city! etc), and there's not a logic loop like there should be saying "there's a city available for me to take, reprioritize X number of troops for the mission"). It might also be why I'll see say the AI attack my wall - less city with a caravel, do half damage, and then sail away instead of taking it the next turn - it might be stuck in some sort of "I need 3 minimum boats to take a city and I only have one" loop

It works exactly as you wrote. They are called Operations.
Naval units can also be part of an operation called Naval Superiority. It is a type of harass op, pillaging, etc. But there is no city capture during this op.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I'm wondering, at this point, if it's intentional. Are they catering to a wider audience by having a less challenging game? I mean, it is off-putting to dump 8 hours into a game and then get steamrolled by the computer. Maybe they're curtailing that frustration by making the combat AI intentionally dumb. Pulling its punches, so to speak.

Not combat AI, but has anyone noticed that the AI doesn't actively try to convert your cities in pursuit of a religious victory if you have your own founded religion? I've seen waves of proselytizers skip my civilization entirely.

Yes, that has been theorized before...ie, that 'The Masses' don't really want to LOSE the game but they want to feel like they 'beat' the game. I think there is some merit in that argument (especially given the massive early successes of games like Farmville and their ilk where mere participation was enough to 'win').

In a crowded market, I imagine they feel that many players simply want to go through the motions and then win the game at the end. If they play for 4 hours and then get steamrolled by an AI mega-stack, they'll rage quit and quite possible never come back.

Of course for many players the opposite is true...if they don't feel like they have been challenged, they lose interest and don't come back. But at least those players are far less likely to come to public forums and ratings system and blast the game, the devs, the dev's dogs, and the world at large.

Whether they are correct in thinking that players don't REALLY want to lose or not still remains to be seen. Given the sales for this game, I'm sure their not crying too much over the criticism of the AI.

 

[Krajzen]

I made a version of the OP test:

* Domination victory only
* Duel size map
* Pangaea
* Information era start
* Deity difficulty
* Online speed
* Aztec opponent
* No turn limit
and no barbs

Find Aztecs and settle near, keep no unit, denounce Aztecs, try to make AI declare war on me

208: start exploring
211: meet AI ranger
213: I settle 4 tiles from Tenochtitlan, delete all units, denounce AI (25 grievance), build Manhattan Project
215: I demand Aztec luxury
218: AI trader creates trade route with me
223: I realize I can have luxury that Aztecs don’t have so I get it, and Monty comes telling me he doesn’t like that
224: I demand AI uranium (12), I see AI escorted settler moving to new lands
231: AI settle on the other side of my capital
236: I finish Manhattan Project, begin supply convoy (will delete it), I demand all AI have, relationship is unfriendly (-16)
241: Monty comes to say sg negative about my people being so badly treated
242: Monty denounces me, relationship is -25, Monty has 20 oil and 48 uranium, I demand all I can
249: Monty has the luxury I have…
250: Monty declares war on me! Moves 3 AT into my land and has rocket arty
251: AI attacks with AT
252: AI attacks with 3 AT and 1 gun
253: AI attacks with arty and units: my fortification is 240/400
254: AI conquers city, I am lost…

So, it was 5 turns after Monty declaring on me...

I will make another test like this with defending arty unit in my city...

test 2, active defending on my part...

215: meet Monty, settle with AT defending, appoint Victor, denounce Monty, relationship is -15
226: AI has new city
230: Monty has AT armies
238: Monty wants embassy, I decline
240: I denounce
241: Monty declares on me! He has 2 AT armies and 1 gun army close to me on his land that is next to my city! I shoot what I can…
242: AI attacks - I shoot AT corps
243: AI attacks - I shoot AT corps
244: AI rocket arty shoots - I am down to the red…
245: I am conquered…

So I tried to defend, and it was again 5 turns after AI declared…

This is fascinating.

If we were to judge just from those tests and OP, it'd really seem that AI is not nearly as incompetent at city attack when it actually plans and declares war on its own. It becomes really stupid when it has no desire to actually take that city. Then it doesn't know what to do.

I am wondering if part of this maybe unexpected nature of irrational human action from AI's perspective (I am obviously metaphorical, I know video game AI is just a bunch of code weights ). I mean, maybe AI is incredibly confused why vastly inferior human, with solo city and no military units, on Deity, suddenly declares war and does nothing. Maybe that falls so much outside AI's patterns it becomes completely lost in how to react?

Anyway, I think Firaxis should definitely look at both scenarios, something is wrong here - according to those experiments, the best way to survive agressive, powerful AI neighbor is to declare war on him immediately as this audacity will scare him off

 

[steveg700]

Conclusions:

* The AI can eventually take a city with walls by kinda bumbling into bombarding it with a fraction of its forces, then going aggressive once the city has no walls or health.
* The AI is still extremely bad at using non-combat units, with settlers moving through dangerous territory unescorted, escorted settlers moving close to enemy cities while at war, and unescorted builders moving into enemy territory.
* The AI is really bad at dealing with city attacks. Units get moved into city attack range for no good reason way too often - I could've shot the helicopter and the rocket artillery tons of times.

Thanks for the empirical data. Tests like these do indeed provide valuable insight to those approaching the matter with objectivity.

test 2, active defending on my part...

215: meet Monty, settle with AT defending, appoint Victor, denounce Monty, relationship is -15
226: AI has new city
230: Monty has AT armies
238: Monty wants embassy, I decline
240: I denounce
241: Monty declares on me! He has 2 AT armies and 1 gun army close to me on his land that is next to my city! I shoot what I can…
242: AI attacks - I shoot AT corps
243: AI attacks - I shoot AT corps
244: AI rocket arty shoots - I am down to the red…
245: I am conquered…

So I tried to defend, and it was again 5 turns after AI declared…

See, I like these tests where you're antagonizing rather than outright DOW'ing. Make him a motivated attacker. Thanks.

Of course, during war the AI should in any event look at a civ's military strength and then make a decision to press the advantage. I can get offering a peace treaty when the AI's current victory path doesn't involve warfare, but I don't get offering over-the-top generous deals to have peace with a weakling.

 

[Naktis]

The AI state is just sad , I really hope for Civ7 Firaxis makes new better one.

As for these tests its just crazy , its as if OP and Soma has whole different game patches or mods.